Upload
lamcong
View
264
Download
4
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Federal Aviation Administration
Post Implementation Monitoring (Compliance) ICAO AFI Data Link Seminar, 2-6 November 2015
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Operational Data Link Familiarization Seminar
Session 3 – Preparation for data link implementation – Post-implementation monitoring (compliance)
(ANSP and Operator): Nairobi, Kenya 2-6 November 2015
Federal Aviation Administration
Post Implementation Monitoring (Compliance) ICAO AFI Data Link Seminar, 2-6 November 2015
Presentation Overview Introduction → guidance material ANSP data collection
▫ CPDLC transaction time/continuity ▫ ADS-C report delivery time/continuity ▫ SATVOICE transaction time/continuity ▫ SATVOICE position report delivery time/continuity ▫ Availability
ANSP performance monitoring and analysis ▫ Data filtering ▫ Time/continuity ▫ Availability ▫ Monitoring reports for regional and global use
Regional performance monitoring and analysis Regional problem reporting and resolution Benefits of PBCS
2
Federal Aviation Administration
Post Implementation Monitoring (Compliance) ICAO AFI Data Link Seminar, 2-6 November 2015
Introduction
• Guidance material for post-implementation monitoring and compliance contained in ICAO Doc 9869 – Performance-Based Communication and Surveillance (PBCS) Manual – Appendix D: CPDLC and ADS-C – Appendix E: SATVOICE
• Formerly contained in the Global Operational Data Link Document (GOLD) and the Satellite Voice Guidance Material (SVGM)
3
Federal Aviation Administration
Post Implementation Monitoring (Compliance) ICAO AFI Data Link Seminar, 2-6 November 2015
DATA COLLECTION
4
Federal Aviation Administration
Post Implementation Monitoring (Compliance) ICAO AFI Data Link Seminar, 2-6 November 2015
CPDLC Transaction Time/Continuity (1 of 3)
• CPDLC data set: controller-initiated transactions that receive a single DM 0 WILCO response A DM 0 WILCO response following a DM 2 STANDBY is not measured
• Table D-1 in PBCS Manual contains CPDLC data collection points
– Most of required 19 data points can be extracted from either the ACARS or ATN B1 header or the CPDLC application message, or calculated based on the other data points
– Aircraft type and operator will need to be matched from a separate database using the aircraft registration as the common point
5
Federal Aviation Administration
Post Implementation Monitoring (Compliance) ICAO AFI Data Link Seminar, 2-6 November 2015
CPDLC Transaction Time/Continuity (2 of 3)
• CPDLC analysis is based on measurement of: – Actual Communication Performance (ACP)
→Required Communication Monitored Performance (RCMP) – Actual Communication Technical Performance (ACTP)
→Required Communication Technical Performance (RCTP) – Pilot Operational Response Time (PORT)
→RCP PORT
• Suggested that ANSP also conduct regular analysis of the message use statistics for the current CPDLC message set for the purpose of assessing usage trends and future development of CPDLC applications
6
Federal Aviation Administration
Post Implementation Monitoring (Compliance) ICAO AFI Data Link Seminar, 2-6 November 2015
CPDLC Transaction Time/Continuity (3 of 3) ACP
Up Down
Sent) (UplinkReceived) (WILCOACP −= RCMP
( )
+
≅ ΔDown
2ΔUpACTP RCTP
ACTPACPPORT −≅ RCP PORT
1 Uplink Sent Date/time ATSU sent CPDLC clearance to the aircraft
2 MAS Received Date/time ATSU receives the MAS for the CPDLC clearance
3 WILCO Sent Date/time aircraft sends WILCO response for the CPDLC clearance
4 WILCO Received Date/time ATSU receives WILCO response for the CPDLC clearance
1 42 3
The measurements (in seconds) are calculated as follows:
Federal Aviation Administration
Post Implementation Monitoring (Compliance) ICAO AFI Data Link Seminar, 2-6 November 2015
ADS-C Report Time/Continuity • Actual Surveillance Performance (ASP)
→Required Surveillance Performance (RSP)
• Table D-3 in PBCS Manual contains ADS-C data collection points
– Most of required 12 data points can be extracted from either the ACARS or ATN B1 header or the ADS-C application message, or calculated based on the other data points
– Aircraft type and operator will need to be matched from a separate database using the aircraft registration as the common point
8
ASP = {time the ADS-C report is received at the ANSP} – {time at position extracted from the decoded ADS-C basic group}
Federal Aviation Administration
Post Implementation Monitoring (Compliance) ICAO AFI Data Link Seminar, 2-6 November 2015
SATVOICE Transaction Time/Continuity • SATVOICE communication performance analysis is based on the
calculation of – Actual Communication Performance (ACP) →RCP time allocations for communication transaction (RCMP)
• The analysis uses the measurement of transit and response times related to clearances sent via SATVOICE that receive a single readback response
• Table E-1 in PBCS Manual contains SATVOICE transaction data collection points – Most of required 9 data points can be extracted from either the
ACARS or the ACARS application message, or calculated based on the other data points
– Aircraft type and operator will need to be matched from a separate database using the aircraft registration as the common point
9
Federal Aviation Administration
Post Implementation Monitoring (Compliance) ICAO AFI Data Link Seminar, 2-6 November 2015
SATVOICE Position Report Delivery Time/Continuity
• Actual Surveillance Performance (ASP) →Required Surveillance Performance (RSP)
• Note: Because the accuracy of the time-over-position within the ACARS position report message is only to the minute (e.g. 15:11) while the accuracy of the timestamp of receipt at the ANSP is to the second (e.g. 15:11:11) the accuracy of the measurement of the surveillance performance will be limited to the minute
• Table E-2 in PBCS Manual contains SATVOICE position report data collection points
– Most of required 12 data points can be extracted from either the ACARS header or the ACARS application message, or calculated based on the other data points
– Aircraft type and operator will need to be matched from a separate database using the aircraft registration as the common point
10
ASP = {time the report is received at the ANSP} – {time-over-position extracted from the decoded ACARS message }
Federal Aviation Administration
Post Implementation Monitoring (Compliance) ICAO AFI Data Link Seminar, 2-6 November 2015
Availability (1 of 2) • To calculate the actual availability of CPDLC and ADS-C ANSP and
of SATVOICE service provision data should be collected for outages greater than 10 minutes CSP notified system outages Detected outages that are not observed by or notified by the CSP
• For each outage the following information should be collected: a) Time of CSP outage notification: In YYYYMMDDHHMM format or “Not
Notified” if no CSP notification received b) CSP Name: Name of CSP providing outage notification if applicable c) Type of outage: Report media affected SATCOM, VHF, HF, ALL d) Outage start time: In YYYYMMDDHHMM format e) Outage end time: In YYYYMMDDHHMM format f) Duration of Outage: In minutes
11
Federal Aviation Administration
Post Implementation Monitoring (Compliance) ICAO AFI Data Link Seminar, 2-6 November 2015
Availability (2 of 2)
• Example of unreported outage – large ADS C downlink delays observed from 3 aircraft during the
period from 11:20 to 12:13
12
Aircraft registration Aircraft time ANSP system time Downlink time (Seconds)
ZKSUI 11:55:38 12:12:52 1,034 ZKSUI 11:44:42 12:12:19 1,657 ZKSUI 11:23:21 12:08:32 2,711 ZKSUJ 11:41:54 12:12:01 1,807 ZKSUJ 11:26:18 12:09:42 2,604 ZKSUJ 11:20:34 12:07:39 2,825 ZKOKG 11:53:52 12:12:51 1,139
Federal Aviation Administration
Post Implementation Monitoring (Compliance) ICAO AFI Data Link Seminar, 2-6 November 2015
Data Format
Data may be stored in database or text format
When sharing raw data (e.g. with the regional monitoring entity) it is suggested to be sent as a .csv file
13
Federal Aviation Administration
Post Implementation Monitoring (Compliance) ICAO AFI Data Link Seminar, 2-6 November 2015
ANSP PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND ANALYSIS
14
Federal Aviation Administration
Post Implementation Monitoring (Compliance) ICAO AFI Data Link Seminar, 2-6 November 2015
Overview
• Collected data are used to monitor the time/continuity of CPDLC and SATVOICE transactions, and ADS-C and SATVOICE report delivery
• At a minimum, monitoring should be conducted for: ►Aggregate system performance (all data combined) ►All media types ►All message type(s) ►All operators ►All aircraft types ►All airframes
15
Federal Aviation Administration
Post Implementation Monitoring (Compliance) ICAO AFI Data Link Seminar, 2-6 November 2015
Data Filtering - CPDLC • Aim is to include only those CPDLC transactions for which there is a
critical communications requirement when applying reduced separation standards – i.e. intervention messages
• The following transactions are filtered out: – Uplink messages with any response other than DM 0 WILCO, including
messages with DM 2 STANDBY responses followed by DM 0 WILCO – Non-intervention route messages (UM 79, UM 80, UM 81, UM 82, UM 83,
UM 84, UM 91, and UM 92) – Contact instructions (UM 117 – UM 123) – RESUME NORMAL SPEED (UM 116)
• Note: the removal of all contact instructions (UM 117 – UM 123) may drastically reduce the monthly data set for some smaller ANSPs and make it difficult to assess ACTP. For this reason some ANSPs may retain these (UM 117 – UM 123) transactions when assessing ACTP only
16
Federal Aviation Administration
Post Implementation Monitoring (Compliance) ICAO AFI Data Link Seminar, 2-6 November 2015
Data Filtering – ADS-C
• Duplicate ADS-C reports should be removed from the data set prior to analysis – Occurs when ADS-C report is sent and the acknowledgement
(ACK) from the GES is not received within a defined period of time causing the aircraft system to resend the report (typically during media transitions)
Only the ADS C report with the earliest receipt time should be kept in the data set
• ADS-C reports with delivery times of zero or less than zero should be filtered out – These times represent cases where the ADS-C basic group
timestamp extracted as seconds since the most recent hour was incorrectly decoded into the HH:MM:SS format by the ATS unit’s system
17
Federal Aviation Administration
Post Implementation Monitoring (Compliance) ICAO AFI Data Link Seminar, 2-6 November 2015
Data Filtering - SATVOICE • When SATVOICE is used after failed attempts on HF, the
observed performance may indicate excessive delays in the SATVOICE performance
• Analysis should include these data to reflect actual operational performance from the controller perspective and then determine whether procedures could potentially mitigate the effects of these delays ►e.g. the radio operator may consider using the SATVOICE
directly when it can be determined to provide a more reliable communication than HF
18
Federal Aviation Administration
Post Implementation Monitoring (Compliance) ICAO AFI Data Link Seminar, 2-6 November 2015
Data Filtering - Outage Periods
• The outage data collected to measure availability should also be used for filtering the ADS-C, CPDLC and SATVOICE data sets
• All ADS-C reports, CPDLC transactions, SATVOICE transactions, and SATVOICE position reports occurring during applicable outage periods reported by the CSP should be removed
• All ADS-C reports, CPDLC transactions, SATVOICE transactions, and SATVOICE position reports occurring during applicable unreported outages detected by the ANSP should also be removed
19
Federal Aviation Administration
Post Implementation Monitoring (Compliance) ICAO AFI Data Link Seminar, 2-6 November 2015
Cumulative Distributions to Measure Performance • Filtering the data limits the size of the sample that will be used to create the
cumulative distributions of data • When providing cumulative distributions of the data, a sufficient sample size
should be determined taking into account a number of factors, such as: – Type of data that will be considered in the sample – Cost, time and difficulty in collecting the data – Existing knowledge about the underlying technologies and implementation – Variability of the data collected – The specific criterion that the data sample will be measures against – Level of confidence desired in the estimated result
• Once a sufficient sample of filtered data has been collected, the next step is to calculate a cumulative distribution for each of the performance parameters to be measured:
– ACP, ACTP, PORT for the CPDLC application – ASP for the ADS-C application – ACP only for SATVOICE intervention capability – ASP for the SATVOICE position reports
20
Federal Aviation Administration
Post Implementation Monitoring (Compliance) ICAO AFI Data Link Seminar, 2-6 November 2015
Graphical Analyses
• It is recommended to begin with graphical analysis of the data as this method is useful for clearly depicting the performance and facilitating the identification of performance problems
• The cumulative performance should be shown in comparison to the relevant parameter values for the transaction times and corresponding continuity requirements – For example - when measuring the cumulative ACP against
RCP 240, the RCP 240 safety and efficiency requirements should be included:
• 240 seconds at 99.9% • 210 seconds at 95.0%
21
Federal Aviation Administration
Post Implementation Monitoring (Compliance) ICAO AFI Data Link Seminar, 2-6 November 2015
PBCS Time/Continuity Performance Criteria
Performance Measure
Percentage of Messages Required to
Meet Criteria
RSP180 Criteria
(sec)
RSP400 Criteria
(sec)
RCP240 Criteria
(sec)
RCP400 Criteria
(sec)
ASP 95% 90 300
99.9% 180 400
ACTP 95% 120 260
99.9% 150 310
ACP 95% 180 320
99.9% 210 370
PORT 95% 60 60
22
Federal Aviation Administration
Post Implementation Monitoring (Compliance) ICAO AFI Data Link Seminar, 2-6 November 2015
Sample Graphical Analysis Format
23
Federal Aviation Administration
Post Implementation Monitoring (Compliance) ICAO AFI Data Link Seminar, 2-6 November 2015
Example – Assessing Annual ACP
24
Federal Aviation Administration
Post Implementation Monitoring (Compliance) ICAO AFI Data Link Seminar, 2-6 November 2015
Example – Assessing ASP by Station ID
25
Federal Aviation Administration
Post Implementation Monitoring (Compliance) ICAO AFI Data Link Seminar, 2-6 November 2015
GES LOCATION(S) SATELLITE/ REGION SITA Identifier
ARINC Identifier
Burum, Netherlands
Inmarsat I-3 AOR-E AOE2 XXN
Inmarsat I-3 AOR-W AOW2 XXW
Perth, Australia
Inmarsat I-3 IOR IOR2 XXI
Inmarsat I-3 POR POR1 XXP
Fucino, Italy
Inmarsat I-4 EMEA EUA1 XXF
Inmarsat I-4 EMEA SBB EME9 XXB
Paumalu, Hawaii, US
Inmarsat I-4 Americas AME1 XXH
Inmarsat I-4 Asia-Pac APK1 XXA
Inmarsat I-4 Americas SBB AMR9 XXU
Inmarsat I-4 Asia-Pacific SBB PAC9 XXS
Kobe and Hitachiota, Japan
MTSAT Japan MTS1 --
Phoenix, Arizona, US Iridium Global IGW1 IG1
26
Federal Aviation Administration
Post Implementation Monitoring (Compliance) ICAO AFI Data Link Seminar, 2-6 November 2015
Tabular Analysis
• It is sometimes helpful to view and report the results in tabular format o For reporting performance at a high level
• Aggregate analysis and analysis by media type
o When there is an impractical amount of series associated with a particular subset to be clearly displayed on a chart
• Analysis by operator
27
Federal Aviation Administration
Post Implementation Monitoring (Compliance) ICAO AFI Data Link Seminar, 2-6 November 2015
Example - Performance by Media Type
28
Media Type
ADS-C CPDLC
Count of ADS-C Downlink Messages
ADS-C 95%
ADS-C 99.9%
Count of CPDLC
Transactions
ACTP 95%
ACTP 99.9%
ACP 95%
ACP 99.9%
PORT 95%
Performance Criteria RSP 180 RCP 240
Aggregate 1,286,267 98.2% 99.3% 45,754 99.7% 99.8% 99.0% 99.3% 96.5%
SAT 1,019,933 98.1% 99.3% 41,822 99.7% 99.8% 99.1% 99.3% 96.5%
VHF 261,232 98.8% 99.5% 3,529 99.9% 99.9% 99.2% 99.4% 96.9%
HF 5,096 73.4% 86.1% 5 -- -- -- -- --
New York July – December 2014
53,570 flights
Federal Aviation Administration
Post Implementation Monitoring (Compliance) ICAO AFI Data Link Seminar, 2-6 November 2015 29
Example - Observed Performance by Operator New York FIR July – December 2014
Federal Aviation Administration
Post Implementation Monitoring (Compliance) ICAO AFI Data Link Seminar, 2-6 November 2015
Example - Summary of Performance by Operator New York FIR
• There were 96 operators with at least 100 ADS-C messages during this 6-month period
• Summary of how many operators meet criteria for each performance measure:
30
Federal Aviation Administration
Post Implementation Monitoring (Compliance) ICAO AFI Data Link Seminar, 2-6 November 2015
Identifying Poor Performers
• There are many potential causes of degraded performance
• Experience has shown that poor performance may be attributed to a specific aircraft in a fleet – Can be identified by graphing the monthly data for a fleet by
aircraft registration
• Techniques such as graphing the positions of all delayed messages on a geographical display have identified areas for further investigation
31
Federal Aviation Administration
Post Implementation Monitoring (Compliance) ICAO AFI Data Link Seminar, 2-6 November 2015
Example – Poor Performer
• De-sensitized operator code: BH • Fleet of 12 – B763 aircraft
– 9 using Iridium → 3/9 meet 95% RSP180 – 3 using I-3 → all meet 95% and 99.9% RSP180
• DSP: SITA • Issue identified with 1 airframe (BH4) performing well
below 95% and rest of fleet
32
Federal Aviation Administration
Post Implementation Monitoring (Compliance) ICAO AFI Data Link Seminar, 2-6 November 2015 33
Federal Aviation Administration
Post Implementation Monitoring (Compliance) ICAO AFI Data Link Seminar, 2-6 November 2015
Example – Graphing Positions • Each ADS-C position annotated with station ID and associated
delay, e.g. “XXU-136” = XXU station ID and 136 sec delay • Clear pattern of higher delays at transition area between VHF and
SAT
34
Federal Aviation Administration
Post Implementation Monitoring (Compliance) ICAO AFI Data Link Seminar, 2-6 November 2015
Example - Monitoring Availability of CPDLC and ADS-C Jun 2014 to May 2015
35
Meets safety and reliability criteria
Meets safety criteria only
Does not meet safety or reliability criteria
Federal Aviation Administration
Post Implementation Monitoring (Compliance) ICAO AFI Data Link Seminar, 2-6 November 2015
Monitoring Reports for Regional and Global Use
• Each ANSP within a region should compile monitoring reports at the interval agreed by the regional forum
• A tabular format can be used to report on the observed system performance in terms of the availability and time/continuity parameters specified in the applicable RCP and RSP specifications
• Appendix D of PBCS Manual contains sample reports for: – Service availability
– RCP and RSP
– Operator with different aircraft types/systems in its fleet
36
Federal Aviation Administration
Post Implementation Monitoring (Compliance) ICAO AFI Data Link Seminar, 2-6 November 2015
REGIONAL PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND ANALYSIS
37
Federal Aviation Administration
Post Implementation Monitoring (Compliance) ICAO AFI Data Link Seminar, 2-6 November 2015
Overview • Consistent data provided by each of the ANSPs within a region can
be aggregated to create a regional PBCS monitoring report in graphical or tabular form
• Options for data sharing from individual ANSPs ► Raw .csv files with data in formats described in Appendices D and E of
the PBCS Manual ► Data containing the cumulative distributions calculated by the ANSP
‒ The regional PBCS monitoring program would specify the time period of interest, the subset(s) of interest, the required filtering and the required format to ensure consistency between the data sets)
• These regional performance metrics should be made available to all interested stakeholders – Regional website should be considered to enhance the distribution of
metrics • It is recommended that regions implement monthly performance
reporting to obtain system performance metrics
38
Federal Aviation Administration
Post Implementation Monitoring (Compliance) ICAO AFI Data Link Seminar, 2-6 November 2015
REGIONAL PROBLEM REPORTING AND RESOLUTION
39
Federal Aviation Administration
Post Implementation Monitoring (Compliance) ICAO AFI Data Link Seminar, 2-6 November 2015
Overview
• All stakeholders should be actively involved in the problem reporting and resolution process – All aircraft operators in a region must have the opportunity to
become involved in the process – CRAs should be pro-active in getting all aircraft operators and
other stakeholders to register and participate in the process
• The problem identification and resolution process for each individual problem consists of: o Data collection phase o Problem analysis and coordination with affected parties to
secure a resolution o Recommendation of interim procedures to mitigate the problem
(as necessary)
40
Federal Aviation Administration
Post Implementation Monitoring (Compliance) ICAO AFI Data Link Seminar, 2-6 November 2015 41
Federal Aviation Administration
Post Implementation Monitoring (Compliance) ICAO AFI Data Link Seminar, 2-6 November 2015
ISPACG-CRA / NAT DLMA
– PRs filed via ISPACG-CRA, NAT DLMA Problem Reporting website: http://www.ispacg-cra.com/
Website hosted by Airways Corporation of New Zealand Limited
– Now used for:
• CRA for South Pacific (ISPACG FIT)
• CRA for North, Central, East Pacific (IPACG FIT)
• DLMA for North Atlantic (NAT CNSG)
• FIT-Asia for South China Sea, Bay of Bengal, Indian Ocean
– Continue to get new entities registered with website
42
Federal Aviation Administration
Post Implementation Monitoring (Compliance) ICAO AFI Data Link Seminar, 2-6 November 2015
PR Status Definitions
• RAISED - the PR has been filed by the originator but has not yet been processed by the CRA
• ACTIVE - CRA has processed the PR and allocated a CRA # and someone to investigate it. During this phase the PR is under investigation
• OPEN - The investigation is complete however some form of correction is required before it can be closed
• CLOSED AS DUPLICATE - Closed because problem is already covered under another PR
• CLOSED - Corrective action has been implemented or PR is a non-problem
43
Federal Aviation Administration
Post Implementation Monitoring (Compliance) ICAO AFI Data Link Seminar, 2-6 November 2015
PR Type Definitions
• Website choices: AIR, GROUND, NETWORK, TBA • CRA tracking breaks out as:
– AIR – procedural – Problem due to flight crew action – AIR – technical – Problem due to avionics fault – GROUND – Problem due to issue at ATSU – NETWORK – Problem at GES or in network – Mult - Problems occurred in more than one area – None - Problem was a non-problem – TBA – To Be Assigned – problem type not yet determined
44
Federal Aviation Administration
Post Implementation Monitoring (Compliance) ICAO AFI Data Link Seminar, 2-6 November 2015
Problem Report Metrics Growth in Number of PRs per Year
45
162 178
112
258
319
49
413
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 (to date) 2015 (predicted)
49 PRs as of 26 Feb 2015
Federal Aviation Administration
Post Implementation Monitoring (Compliance) ICAO AFI Data Link Seminar, 2-6 November 2015
Problem Report Metrics
46
133
36 79
55
11 9
NATNOPACSOPACASIACANADAEUROPE
All Problem Reports by Region Feb 12, 2014 - Feb 12, 2015
141
139
41
2 ANSPs
Operators
CRA (incl.CRASA-J)DSPs
All Problem Reports by Agency Type
Feb 12, 2014 - Feb 12, 2015
Federal Aviation Administration
Post Implementation Monitoring (Compliance) ICAO AFI Data Link Seminar, 2-6 November 2015
Example: PR 1508-MM • PBCS analysis, ASP by station ID, in New York FIR highlighted several
paths with notably lower performance, including XXH, data link service provided by ARINC using the Inmarsat I-4 Americas satellite via the ground station in Paumalu, Hawaii, US
• Upon further investigation, notable variation between operator/aircraft type combinations, with the top user of XXH barely meeting the 95% criteria for RSP180
• PR submitted 5 Feb 2014 • The issue has been worked between the operator, Honeywell, and
Boeing since then • Initial solution was to change ORT settings – however this did not
resolve the issue • Honeywell has indicated that a specific incompatibility between certain
Honeywell SATCOM avionics and the Inmarsat Classic Aero network is the likely cause of this problem and are continuing to work on a solution
47
Federal Aviation Administration
Post Implementation Monitoring (Compliance) ICAO AFI Data Link Seminar, 2-6 November 2015
Example: PR 1508-MM ASP by Station ID for New York FIR
48
Federal Aviation Administration
Post Implementation Monitoring (Compliance) ICAO AFI Data Link Seminar, 2-6 November 2015
Example: PR 1508-MM ASP by Operator/Aircraft Type for New York FIR – Jul to Dec 2013
49
Federal Aviation Administration
Post Implementation Monitoring (Compliance) ICAO AFI Data Link Seminar, 2-6 November 2015 50
Example: PR 1508-MM ASP by Operator/Aircraft Type for New York FIR – May 2015
Federal Aviation Administration
Post Implementation Monitoring (Compliance) ICAO AFI Data Link Seminar, 2-6 November 2015
Benefits of PBCS
PBCS Monitoring • Ensures actual system performance is maintained in
accordance with RCP-RSP specifications – Actual communication performance is measured against
appropriate RCP specifications – Actual surveillance performance is measured against RSP
appropriate specifications
• Provides effective way to improve system performance – Analysis tools can be and are shared (e.g. G-PAT) – Local results can be exchanged regionally and globally